My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
res_6939
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Resolutions
>
06xxx
>
6900
>
res_6939
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:12:49 AM
Creation date
4/25/2005 12:02:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Resolutions
Resolution #
6939
Resolution Title
Ordering the Construction of Improvement No. P-79-2 Under and Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429
Resolution Date Passed
4/14/1980
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />7 <br /> <br />up in our (inaudible) replacement proposal, which is four <br />years from now, and particularly the section near the west <br />end is going to have to have some base replacement based <br />on our preliminary investigation. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN ANDERSON: As I remember, one of the objections <br />was the width of the street., Could we make the street <br />narrower than what - it seems to me we were at about 36 feet. <br /> <br />MR. HONCHELL: The existing proposal before you, and the <br />estimate that was prepared is based on a 36-foot face to <br />face pavement. That's face of one curb to face of the other <br />curb. That's assuming there's no parking on one side of <br />the road. You can get it down to approximately 32 feet <br />which is equivalent to our residential streets - but pro- <br />hibit parking on both sides of the roadway. That's really <br />the smallest you can go and meet the MSA requirement. I would <br />have to say if we don't do it by MSA and the fact that we do <br />it as a typical residential street, we would still be looking <br />at 32 feet face to face because that's our minimum standard <br />for streets that have even a hundred cars a day. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN CURLEY: But then we would have to assess <br />everybody. <br /> <br />MR. HONCHELL: If we didn't pave it by the MSA standards <br />it would still be 32 feet because that's our minimum through- <br />out the city. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN FRANKE: Is it the feeling of the people that <br />you just want to let the potholes on it? <br /> <br />MR. PERMAN: I think I'd also like Dr. Hilgedick to <br />speak to it. My own feelings are if you take the MSA <br />your declaring Skillman either an arterial or connecting <br />street to get the MSA approval for it, is that right? <br /> <br />MR. HONCHELL: Yes. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN FRANKE: I feel in my mind that Skillman, <br />by nature of where it is and what it's doing, when we say <br />it's MSA that doesn't declare it a collector street, but <br />when we declare it MSA it's to save the people on the street <br />assessment funds. We're allowed so much, but Skillman by <br />virtue of where it is and what it is, is a collector street. <br /> <br />MR. PERMAN: I think we'd rather pay (inaudible) if <br />most of the traffic is generated by the residents themselves. <br />My own feelings are I would rather have it in its present <br />condition than to go to the 36 foot width and to take what <br />ensues because of the widening of the street and the <br />improved surface. If it meant conforming to village standards <br />of 32 feet (inaudible) I'm speaking for myself, I would <br />rather pay the assessments and have a street that I think <br />we could possibly live with. The idea of stop signs have come <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.